benny14 wrote:It was then reported several months later that the MRV-P group 1 has been raised to potentially 2,747 vehicles.

Looks to me that the base vehicle comes at the targeted price"November 29/18: $1.7b order The US Army is ordering another batch of Joint Light Tactical Vehicles from Oshkosh. Oshkosh will deliver 6,017 JLTVs at a cost of $1,7 billion. "

Other than higher level protection (still a std add-on) what on earth are the 'gubbins' that make our vehicles (rumoured?) much dearer?

I have no clue where that rumor came from. The FMS approval for up to 2747 vehicles had a unitary price of 376,775 USD, and it included quite a lot of extras, as always with FMS authorizations which tend to aim for the stars as it is easier to buy less than authorized than seek a new authorization,

The Government of the United Kingdom (UK) has requested a possible sale of up to two thousand seven hundred forty-seven (2,747) Joint Light Tactical Vehicles (JLTV). This possible sale also includes baseline integration kits, basic issue item kits, B-kit armor, engine arctic kits, fording kits, run-flat kits, spare tire kits, silent watch kits, power expansion kits cargo cover kits, maintainer and operator training, U.S. government technical assistance and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. Total estimated cost is $1.035 billion.

With no evidence of big cost growth on the US side, i have no clue on which grounds the news of big cost increase for the UK started to circulate.Mind you, the introduction of ANY new fleet comes with costs that go above and beyond the purchase of vehicles and kits themselves, but that is hardly the JLTV fault.

I wonder if the crowd of people opposing this purchase (not without some reason, thinking of home industry capability) have gotten overeager with their claims.

Also note that the latest US purchase includes 6100 vehicles and 22.000 kits.

Oshkosh Defense LLC, Oshkosh, Wisconsin, was awarded a $1,698,639,588 modification (P00163) to contract W56HZV-15-C-0095 to exercise available options for 6,107 vehicles and 22,166 kits. Work will be performed in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, with an estimated completion date of Sept. 30, 2019. Fiscal 2017, 2018 and 2019 other procurement, Army funds; and 2018 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $1,698,639,588 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Warren, Michigan, is the contracting activity.

Doubt the UK is purchasing anything near that number...!

You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

The FMS package announced for the UK probably covers a full support package for the life of the platform, with contractor support at all levels except the front line. This doesn't come cheap but it is a fixed cost which the Treasury in particular like. Also with a package containing nearly everything the British Army could possibly want authorised, there is far less chance of additional costs of any magnitude appearing down the line. From that I can see the MRV(P) is replacing not only many of the UOR MRAVs bought for Iraq and Afghanistan but also many "Soft" platforms eventually. There is still a place for unarmoured platforms on Salisbury plain but not on any deployment anymore. We have been caught out too many times and have had to scramble to get the right kit to the troops. Orders for both flavours of MRV(P) and the MIV need to be in the top five priorities for the MoD, and should be the top three programmes for the Army.

We might not take up the option, but as stated these FMS authorisations often contain everything a customer could want or sometimes dream of. IF sufficient 4x4 and eventually 6x6 MRV(P) are purchased it will go along way to transforming the British Army into a 21st Century fit for purpose fighting force, rather than a force that has to beg borrow and steal to cobble together a fully functioning formation.

This is why Iv always believed we should go with the foxhound family. With many variants already at or past the prototype stage and the basic model already in British army use makes it well on it way.

Yes they cost more but with them already being in service the set up cost that the JLTV would required would automatically be saved. with the foxhound being British built I believe that tax revenue should start to be taken in to account along with other departments chipping in such as the DTI due it supporting a strategic industry

Foxhound hasn't been without it's issues, but there will be obsolescence and reproduction issues to address if it is to be restarted.

Oh u agree the cost is too high this is most likely why it was discounted at the start, but this is why I believe there needs to be a change from HMG when deciding price ( this would also apply to naval vessels ) with foxhound being British built all areas in which tax is regain by the treasury from the project should be front load to the MOD by HMG and with it being a strategic industry departments such as DTI should stump up some of the funding as it is there remit to help strategic British industries, both these measures combined would help off set a great deal of the foxhound cost.

Yes it’s had it’s problems but a lot cinks have now been worked out, and when look at the fact the training and surplus trains are already set up cost and problems come down again.

I know it’s be a big change for HMG and is a dream for the most part but IMO this would be the best route HMG could take for both the army ( and forces over all ) and British industry.

Jake1992 wrote:with foxhound being British built all areas in which tax is regain by the treasury from the project should be front load to the MOD by HMG and with it being a strategic industry departments such as DTI should stump up some of the funding as it is there remit to help strategic British industries, both these measures combined would help off set a great deal of the foxhound cost.

Yeah it's British Built if you ignore the engine, transmission, driver cameras...

Jake1992 wrote:with foxhound being British built all areas in which tax is regain by the treasury from the project should be front load to the MOD by HMG and with it being a strategic industry departments such as DTI should stump up some of the funding as it is there remit to help strategic British industries, both these measures combined would help off set a great deal of the foxhound cost.

Yeah it's British Built if you ignore the engine, transmission, driver cameras...

It still keeps engineering skills here in the UK over just buying off the factory line from the US

Armoured vehicle production has not been seen as a strategic industry for decades, being allowed to wither to almost nothing. The current programmes such as Ajax and Boxer will help to re-establish it somewhat but only for the final assembly of platforms. Lack of orders was the core reason, especially after BAe were allowed to swallow the majority of UK companies in this sector, find out there was little income and so closed down or mothballed most sites and then switched its attention to the US where business was far better.

As for the JLTV issues I think that is more down to the way it has been introduced by the US Army. All platforms are getting more complicated so why are they surprised that the=is one is. The lack of manuals and so on is a situation that has happened more than once in the past, M16 anyone.

Don't know if this has been posted before but it gives a good idea of he variant of the JLTV that are available even thought this video is about its parent. Using a combination of long and short wheel base variants we could fulfil all the MRV(P) requirements with a common vehicle.

Lord Jim wrote:Don't know if this has been posted before but it gives a good idea of he variant of the JLTV that are available even thought this video is about its parent. Using a combination of long and short wheel base variants we could fulfil all the MRV(P) requirements with a common vehicle.

I still prefer the foxhound family, not only British built but the types that are meant to be already there seem more flexible. It would also negate the cost of setting up a new surply chain and training.

It may be trivial but the foxhound family just look more of a British style to me aswell

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Jake1992 wrote:I still prefer the foxhound family, not only British built but the types that are meant to be already there seem more flexible. It would also negate the cost of setting up a new surply chain and training.

It may be trivial but the foxhound family just look more of a British style to me aswell

There are only 4 existing Foxhound builds: Standard patrol vehicle, HAWK (communication hub), Utility and WMIK. Not forgetting the UK has already put significant funds into foxhound to convert it to Core vehicle standard (as opposed to UOR standards).

JLTV has had all that development cost of variants sucked up by the US budget, so the UK is pretty much just paying for build costs.

Jake1992 wrote:I still prefer the foxhound family, not only British built but the types that are meant to be already there seem more flexible. It would also negate the cost of setting up a new surply chain and training.

It may be trivial but the foxhound family just look more of a British style to me aswell

There are only 4 existing Foxhound builds: Standard patrol vehicle, HAWK (communication hub), Utility and WMIK. Not forgetting the UK has already put significant funds into foxhound to convert it to Core vehicle standard (as opposed to UOR standards).

JLTV has had all that development cost of variants sucked up by the US budget, so the UK is pretty much just paying for build costs.

Oh I completely understand the cost that would be involved and due to that the JLTV is cheaper, but I still prefer the foxhound family.

My understanding is that the JLTVs will be built in the US this in turn would be a losing in tax’s and skills here in the UK Iv always maintain that in these situation HMG should have the treasury compensate the MOD if the British design is chosen.

Unless something unexpected happen we will be using the JLTV aka MRV(P) 4x4, as it has been offered at a price that cannot be beaten by the competition. yes the basic vehicle will be built in the US but they will be kitted out in the UK if things go ahead.

Foxhound was/is a good vehicle but it has not been developed to the level needed for the future and the company cannot compete for large programmes due to its size and capacity. Small quantities of specialised vehicles could still be procured or existing vehicles returned and re-worked at the manufacturer.

Remember we are talking big number when it comes to the MRV(P) programme. Initial number published are for the initial requirement with further orders to follow in the future. Whether we still go for the 6X6 or use a combination of Boxer and MRV(P) is unknown but the upper level of possible orders for both vehicles could mean they will be doing the role of the 6x6 between them.

By the time we get the JTLV it will be a truly mature programme. LWB variant like the "Intervention" can carry up to 8 dismounts and there are already Engineering and other specialised variants ready to go.

One idea I have mulled over would be a "Strike" Brigade (light) where we would have two Infantry Battalions in Boxer and two in JLTVs. Both platforms can carry all the support weapons used by the Infantry and are capable of mounting autocannon and ATGWs. Tis would be a true high mobility formations and the JLTV would give the Battalions a pretty good Recce Platform. Anyway just an idea among many such as giving quite a few JLTVs to 16 AA Brigade to give them greater mobility and flexibility without always relying on helicopters.

Lord Jim wrote:Unless something unexpected happen we will be using the JLTV aka MRV(P) 4x4, as it has been offered at a price that cannot be beaten by the competition. yes the basic vehicle will be built in the US but they will be kitted out in the UK if things go ahead.

Foxhound was/is a good vehicle but it has not been developed to the level needed for the future and the company cannot compete for large programmes due to its size and capacity. Small quantities of specialised vehicles could still be procured or existing vehicles returned and re-worked at the manufacturer.

Remember we are talking big number when it comes to the MRV(P) programme. Initial number published are for the initial requirement with further orders to follow in the future. Whether we still go for the 6X6 or use a combination of Boxer and MRV(P) is unknown but the upper level of possible orders for both vehicles could mean they will be doing the role of the 6x6 between them.

By the time we get the JTLV it will be a truly mature programme. LWB variant like the "Intervention" can carry up to 8 dismounts and there are already Engineering and other specialised variants ready to go.

One idea I have mulled over would be a "Strike" Brigade (light) where we would have two Infantry Battalions in Boxer and two in JLTVs. Both platforms can carry all the support weapons used by the Infantry and are capable of mounting autocannon and ATGWs. Tis would be a true high mobility formations and the JLTV would give the Battalions a pretty good Recce Platform. Anyway just an idea among many such as giving quite a few JLTVs to 16 AA Brigade to give them greater mobility and flexibility without always relying on helicopters.

I really like this platform if you haven't guessed.

Oh I have no doubt that JLTV will be a decent bit of kit for the army, I just think it’s been a missed opertunity by HMG not just for the army but for uk industry as a whole.

2 things that set the foxhound back that both could be sorted by a cross departmental aproch the price and the need to develop it further.

The development of the family could of been helped by the DTI, with a bit of investment from this department the design could of been developed in to a full set up along with the facility to allow it to not only compete in the large scale uk bids but also exports.

The price could of been offset some what by the treasury due to the tax from both the company, employs abd the wider surply chain thay would of received which they will not with the JLTV bid.

Going down this route with foxhound would not only of giving the army a very capable platform ( IMO a better one ) but also built up a high skilled industry in the UK that has the potential for exports.

Thrbig provlem I see with the HMGs aprouch to UK defence industry ( armour, ship building, aero space ) is that we have 2 extremes at the moment, one that wants complete government control and the other that wants complete free market. Now when you look at the nation that are successful at these around the world you see that govenment invest in the privet industry set up in one way or another ( intenially over paying or direct involvement ) to a far greater extent than we do.

It is what became the JLTV and the same variant have been developed and then some. I couldn't find a video showing all the JTLV options at the time so though this would do and I did state it was not the JLTV but its predecessor.

Jake1992 wrote:.Going down this route with foxhound would not only of giving the army a very capable platform ( IMO a better one ) but also built up a high skilled industry in the UK that has the potential for exports.

We already have a skill base for manufacturing such vehicles. We built foxhound and UK-spec a whole host of UOR complex fix vehicles. Now AJAX takes that a step further and potentially WCSP. Maybe even MIV and CR LEP.

But for all the good that Foxhound is, it's too expensive for large numbers and it's an export failure.